Francis denies Our Lady is Co-Redemptrix

[Philip G.]

"By their fruits you will know them".  So long as Louis de Montfort is the champion of the mary mediatrix, co-redemptrix, and the 5th marian dogma movement, the initiative will not enjoy passivity.  Teaching, as de montfort does, that Mary is to be likened to an earthly queen who has a duty as a result of her great dignity to own slaves, and in the fullest sense of the word slave; and can put them to death as her pleasure sees fit, no differently than I quote "one might put to death a horse" has no place in the traditional understanding of the Virgin Mary, Mother of God.  And, that is not all you will find in his works.  Read his works at your own risk. 

You can go down the list of today's trad clergy who practice and/or promote louis de montfort and/or his consecration/form of devotion, and they are all controversial at best and lamentable at worst.  The CMRI clergy, the premier usurper sedevacantist group, are all doing the de montfort consecration.  The Plinio de oliviera TFP disciples are doing the de montfort consecration after the example of their founder.  + Clarence Kelly of mixed opinion and founder of the cspv is constantly referencing louis de montfort positively in his reflections/newsletters.  The official feeneyite groups are "slaves" doing the de montfort consecrations.  Even Bishop Faure, who pulled an about face immediately after being consecrated may be doing the de montfort consecration(his private seminary is the louis de montfort seminary).  Do you really think +Williamson would have consecrated him if he knew that shortly after he was going to decree into existence a new religious congregation contrary to his own personal recommendation?  Conversely, the sspx was "canonically erected, and uncanonically suppressed."  It is totally different.  If you think that my posts are incoherent, read the thoroughly gnostic grimoire that survived the destruction of the french revolution solely because its adherents say it was fortunately hiding "in a box" only after to be discovered.  Or don't, because, on your own, you will likely be defeated by it. "By their fruits you shall know them."

What is wrong with consecrating ourselves as a slave to Jesus through Mary?

"Thy kingdom come, thy will be done, on earth as it is in heaven".  There are no slaves in heaven.  Just as King Herod and Pharoah are not babysitters, the Virgin Mary, queen of heaven, ancíllae suae, is not a slave owner.  God doesn't put to death slaves like a horse.  God defeats death.  Like I have said, the Virgin Mary did not die. 

Pharoah had to be drowned in the sea, and Herod had to die before Christ would return to their land.  We are seemingly talking about an unforgivable sin here.

There might even be something satanic about the phrase "put to death no differently than one would put to death a horse".  How and why does the world put a horse down?  The world does it fast(shooting your horse if it has a broken ankle), and proactively(it is an old horse).  That means, applied to humans, suffering is not only not salvific, but it is so bad that we have to put a prospective sufferer down so that they don't ever experience suffering.  Such is the charism of those doing the de montfort consecration.  Contrast that with Christ who gave us the beatitudes.  "Blessed are they" said our Lord.

I think you are understanding things wrong.  In fact I'm positive you are.

Where exactly is the phrase "put to death no differently than one would put to death a horse" in Louis de Montfort's writings?

"There is a world of difference between a servant and a slave. 1) A servant does not give his
employer all he is, all he has, and all he can acquire by himself or through others. A slave, however, gives
himself to his master completely and exclusively with all he has and all he can acquire. 2) A servant
demands wages for the services rendered to his employer. A slave, on the other hand, can expect nothing, no
matter what skill, attention or energy he may have put into his work. 3) A servant can leave his employer
whenever he pleases, or at least when the term of his service expires, whereas the slave has no such right. 4)
An employer has no right of life and death over a servant. Were he to kill him as he would a beast of
burden, he would commit murder. But the master of a slave has by law the right of life and death over him,
so that he can sell him to anyone he chooses or - if you will pardon the comparison - kill him as he would
kill his horse. 5) Finally, a servant is in his employer's service only for a time; a slave for always. "

"Moreover, if, as I have said, the Blessed Virgin is the Queen and Sovereign of heaven and earth,
does she not then have as many subjects and slaves as there are creatures? "All things, including Mary
herself, are subject to the power of God. All things, God included, are subject to the Virgin's power", so we
are told by St. Anselm, St. Bernard, St. Bernardine and St. Bonaventure. Is it not reasonable to find that
among so many slaves there should be some slaves of love, who freely choose Mary as their Queen? Should
men and demons have willing slaves, and Mary have none? A king makes it a point of honour that the
queen, his consort, should have her own slaves, over whom she has right of life and death, for honour and
power given to the queen is honour and power given to the king. Could we possibly believe that Jesus, the
best of all sons, who shared his power with his Blessed Mother, would resent her having her own slaves?
Has he less esteem and love for his Mother than Ahasuerus had for Esther, or Solomon for Bathsheba? Who
could say or even think such a thing? "

The type of slavery Louis de Montfort is demanding the Virgin Mary be "honored" with is the type of slavery where the owner can put to death the slave no differently than one would put to death a horse.  And, that is murder.  Such a comparison I will not pardon, and such a comparison is not a coincidence.  Recall the horsemen of the apocalypse.  Unless a horse has been broken, a horse can serve two masters.  Jesus says, "you cannot serve two masters", and "my yoke is sweet, and my burden is light."

[Miriam_M]

Philip,

Even I, who has no problem with devotion to Our Mother, was once temporarily put off by some of the language Louis de Montfort uses.  I brought this concern at that time to my spiritual director, who explained that St. Louis was writing during a highly anti-Marian period, so one of the author's purposes was polemic.

Second point is that all authentic devotion to Mary is Christological, or it is not Catholic. And surely no one knew that better than Louis de Montfort. The term "slave" may not work for every layman who wishes to be a slave of Jesus Christ.  This somewhat academic article from EWTN, especially the difference between "true devotion" and "pious practice" may help to explain some of the Saint's use of language.

https://www.ewtn.com/catholicism/library/true-devotion-12808

After prayer and discussion with my director, making the Consecration to her became a no-brainer for me, which I did in front of the tabernacle with my director at my side.  It was one of the best decisions of my spiritual life, and I have all kinds of evidence that she has been protecting me in a way that was not true before my consecration.

It cannot be said enough that she does not bring believers to herself; she brings all of us only to her Son, to the Holy Ghost her Spouse, and to the Sacraments.  Devotion to any Saint means prayer and receptivity to the fruits of their intercession, not worship or replacement.

[Philip G.]

Philip,

Even I, who has no problem with devotion to Our Mother, was once temporarily put off by some of the language Louis de Montfort uses.  I brought this concern at that time to my spiritual director, who explained that St. Louis was writing during a highly anti-Marian period, so one of the author's purposes was polemic.

Second point is that all authentic devotion to Mary is Christological, or it is not Catholic. And surely no one knew that better than Louis de Montfort. The term "slave" may not work for every layman who wishes to be a slave of Jesus Christ.  This somewhat academic article from EWTN, especially the difference between "true devotion" and "pious practice" may help to explain some of the Saint's use of language.

https://www.ewtn.com/catholicism/library/true-devotion-12808

After prayer and discussion with my director, making the Consecration to her became a no-brainer for me, which I did in front of the tabernacle with my director at my side.  It was one of the best decisions of my spiritual life, and I have all kinds of evidence that she has been protecting me in a way that was not true before my consecration.

It cannot be said enough that she does not bring believers to herself; she brings all of us only to her Son, to the Holy Ghost her Spouse, and to the Sacraments.  Devotion to any Saint means prayer and receptivity to the fruits of their intercession, not worship or replacement.

I have read all of his works.  And, I would be more inclined to believe that Louis de Montfort is not the final author of "true devotion" and the "secret of Mary" than to believe that some of what is written in there is in conformity with the true religion.  What I have posted is only one snippet of what is written in "true devotion".  But, the problem is that the rest of it is no different.  It is filled with dark ominous language/symbolism that can be interpreted in an occult sense.  This is why I also cite their fruits manifest in the trad world.  The CMRI(ultra sedevacantists), the TFP Plinio cult, and the feeneyites are all doing this.  That should be enough for one to question it. For, it is these groups that are considered the troublemakers in modern tradition. 

Let me make it clear, I am not criticizing marian consecration in general.  I am however criticizing louis de montfort's devotional approach, and writings.  As for your particular situation, I am going to presume that you are doing the louis de montfort method of consecration.  And, I will say, but I will not explain, the fact that you are a female lessens my concern in your regard.  I am more concerned with males, as my real life examples indicate.

[mikemac]

"By their fruits you will know them".  So long as Louis de Montfort is the champion of the mary mediatrix, co-redemptrix, and the 5th marian dogma movement, the initiative will not enjoy passivity.  Teaching, as de montfort does, that Mary is to be likened to an earthly queen who has a duty as a result of her great dignity to own slaves, and in the fullest sense of the word slave; and can put them to death as her pleasure sees fit, no differently than I quote "one might put to death a horse" has no place in the traditional understanding of the Virgin Mary, Mother of God.  And, that is not all you will find in his works.  Read his works at your own risk. 

You can go down the list of today's trad clergy who practice and/or promote louis de montfort and/or his consecration/form of devotion, and they are all controversial at best and lamentable at worst.  The CMRI clergy, the premier usurper sedevacantist group, are all doing the de montfort consecration.  The Plinio de oliviera TFP disciples are doing the de montfort consecration after the example of their founder.  + Clarence Kelly of mixed opinion and founder of the cspv is constantly referencing louis de montfort positively in his reflections/newsletters.  The official feeneyite groups are "slaves" doing the de montfort consecrations.  Even Bishop Faure, who pulled an about face immediately after being consecrated may be doing the de montfort consecration(his private seminary is the louis de montfort seminary).  Do you really think +Williamson would have consecrated him if he knew that shortly after he was going to decree into existence a new religious congregation contrary to his own personal recommendation?  Conversely, the sspx was "canonically erected, and uncanonically suppressed."  It is totally different.  If you think that my posts are incoherent, read the thoroughly gnostic grimoire that survived the destruction of the french revolution solely because its adherents say it was fortunately hiding "in a box" only after to be discovered.  Or don't, because, on your own, you will likely be defeated by it. "By their fruits you shall know them."

What is wrong with consecrating ourselves as a slave to Jesus through Mary?

"Thy kingdom come, thy will be done, on earth as it is in heaven".  There are no slaves in heaven.  Just as King Herod and Pharoah are not babysitters, the Virgin Mary, queen of heaven, ancíllae suae, is not a slave owner.  God doesn't put to death slaves like a horse.  God defeats death.  Like I have said, the Virgin Mary did not die. 

Pharoah had to be drowned in the sea, and Herod had to die before Christ would return to their land.  We are seemingly talking about an unforgivable sin here.

There might even be something satanic about the phrase "put to death no differently than one would put to death a horse".  How and why does the world put a horse down?  The world does it fast(shooting your horse if it has a broken ankle), and proactively(it is an old horse).  That means, applied to humans, suffering is not only not salvific, but it is so bad that we have to put a prospective sufferer down so that they don't ever experience suffering.  Such is the charism of those doing the de montfort consecration.  Contrast that with Christ who gave us the beatitudes.  "Blessed are they" said our Lord.

I think you are understanding things wrong.  In fact I'm positive you are.

Where exactly is the phrase "put to death no differently than one would put to death a horse" in Louis de Montfort's writings?

"There is a world of difference between a servant and a slave. 1) A servant does not give his
employer all he is, all he has, and all he can acquire by himself or through others. A slave, however, gives
himself to his master completely and exclusively with all he has and all he can acquire. 2) A servant
demands wages for the services rendered to his employer. A slave, on the other hand, can expect nothing, no
matter what skill, attention or energy he may have put into his work. 3) A servant can leave his employer
whenever he pleases, or at least when the term of his service expires, whereas the slave has no such right. 4)
An employer has no right of life and death over a servant. Were he to kill him as he would a beast of
burden, he would commit murder. But the master of a slave has by law the right of life and death over him,
so that he can sell him to anyone he chooses or - if you will pardon the comparison - kill him as he would
kill his horse. 5) Finally, a servant is in his employer's service only for a time; a slave for always. "

"Moreover, if, as I have said, the Blessed Virgin is the Queen and Sovereign of heaven and earth,
does she not then have as many subjects and slaves as there are creatures? "All things, including Mary
herself, are subject to the power of God. All things, God included, are subject to the Virgin's power", so we
are told by St. Anselm, St. Bernard, St. Bernardine and St. Bonaventure. Is it not reasonable to find that
among so many slaves there should be some slaves of love, who freely choose Mary as their Queen? Should
men and demons have willing slaves, and Mary have none? A king makes it a point of honour that the
queen, his consort, should have her own slaves, over whom she has right of life and death, for honour and
power given to the queen is honour and power given to the king. Could we possibly believe that Jesus, the
best of all sons, who shared his power with his Blessed Mother, would resent her having her own slaves?
Has he less esteem and love for his Mother than Ahasuerus had for Esther, or Solomon for Bathsheba? Who
could say or even think such a thing? "

The type of slavery Louis de Montfort is demanding the Virgin Mary be "honored" with is the type of slavery where the owner can put to death the slave no differently than one would put to death a horse.  And, that is murder.  Such a comparison I will not pardon, and such a comparison is not a coincidence.  Recall the horsemen of the apocalypse.  Unless a horse has been broken, a horse can serve two masters.  Jesus says, "you cannot serve two masters", and "my yoke is sweet, and my burden is light."

The first paragraph you quoted is comparing the difference between a servant and a slave.  Where as the slave gives his all for his master, the servant does not.  As a consecrated slave to Jesus through Mary we'd be giving all for God.  This first paragraph you quoted is number 71 on this page.

http://www.montfort.org.uk/Writings/TD.php

Philip did you not read the next two paragraphs, number 72?

72. No other human state involves belonging more completely to another than slavery. Among Christian peoples, nothing makes a person belong more completely to Jesus and his holy Mother than voluntary slavery. Our Lord himself gave us the example of this when out of love for us he "took the form of a slave". Our Lady gave us the same example when she called herself the handmaid or slave of the Lord. The Apostle considered it an honour to be called "slave of Christ". Several times in Holy Scripture, Christians are referred to as "slaves of Christ".

The Latin word "servus" at one time signified only a slave because servants as we know them did not exist. Masters were served either by slaves or by freedmen. The Catechism of the Council of Trent leaves no doubt about our being slaves of Jesus Christ, using the unequivocal term "Mancipia Christi", which plainly means: slaves of Christ.

Same goes for the second paragraph that you quoted Philip.  It is number 76 on the same page.  This is the following paragraph, number 77.

77. But where is my pen leading me? Why am I wasting my time proving something so obvious? If people are unwilling to call themselves slaves of Mary, what does it matter? Let them become and call themselves slaves of Jesus Christ, for this is the same as being slaves of Mary, since Jesus is the fruit and glory of Mary. This is what we do perfectly in the devotion we shall discuss later.

Many saints have consecrated themselves as a slave to Jesus through Mary.  Philip you must be letting your imagination run amuck for you to say "There might even be something satanic about the phrase."  Or to call it a "gnostic grimoire".  A grimoire!!!  You need to give your head a shake pal.

A grimoire (/?r?m?w??r/ grim-WAHR) (also known as a "book of spells") is a textbook of magic, typically including instructions on how to create magical objects like talismans and amulets, how to perform magical spells, charms and divination, and how to summon or invoke supernatural entities such as angels, spirits, deities and demons.

[Miriam_M]

Addressing Philip's concern articulated in his Reply #32, perhaps any men on the forum who have done the Consecration can explain to Philip why they did it and what benefit(s) it has brought them, if there are such men on SD.

I'm not sure what your concerns are, Philip, regarding the "method of consecration." (Montfort's)  Again, perhaps if men have done that same method, they might come forward for the benefit of all of us.  (My understanding of the "method" is simply specific prayers and reading, for a designated period prior to the first consecration or annual re-consecration.)  Are there objectionable prayers in that group?

[mikemac]

It's been a few years since I consecrated myself as a slave to Jesus through Mary.  I can't see how it would be much of a difference between a man and a woman.  Anyway someone posted The Secret of the Rosary from this page a couple of months ago http://www.montfort.org.uk/Writings/ASR.php .  So I read it again, a bit each day with no time limit and enjoyed it.  So when I was finished reading The Secret of the Rosary I started at the top left of the page with Letters of St. Louis Marie and read a bit each day going down the list on the left until now I'm back to reading The Secret of the Rosary again, Twenty-sixth Rose today.  Like I say I enjoy taking my own time and reading it with no time limit.  I think some of the writings of Saint Louis de Montfort remind me of Thomas à Kempis The Imitation of Christ, both very good devotions.

[Gardener]

This link has a lot of background on the concepts, and how to understand what St. Louis de Montfort is saying:

https://www.ewtn.com/catholicism/library/slavery-of-love-12824

[Gardener]

Addressing Philip's concern articulated in his Reply #32, perhaps any men on the forum who have done the Consecration can explain to Philip why they did it and what benefit(s) it has brought them, if there are such men on SD.

I'm not sure what your concerns are, Philip, regarding the "method of consecration." (Montfort's)  Again, perhaps if men have done that same method, they might come forward for the benefit of all of us.  (My understanding of the "method" is simply specific prayers and reading, for a designated period prior to the first consecration or annual re-consecration.)  Are there objectionable prayers in that group?

I did the St. Louis de Montfort method prep and consecration back in 2013, and originally did the Consecration prayer (no prep) of St. Maximilian Kolbe in 2012.

It would seem obvious to anyone that has ever actually read the consecration prep materials that Philip's understanding of the language is incorrect. This leads me to believe he is either ignorant of the entire context of the method or somehow has a mental block to understanding what he read, similar to when Protestants cry foul about such terms as "the cult of Mary" or "pray to the Saints". Such is understandable for a Protestant. It's not understandable for a Catholic who posits themselves as some sort of interpretive authority, such as Philip, contra generations of Saints, Popes, and Theologians competent in parsing out these concepts.

As for the method, its language, the benefits, etc.:

The prep method itself is rough and much like what I've heard about the Ignatian exercises. It beats the crap out of you mentally and emotionally, and breaks down a lot of false humility in the spiritual realm. In short, it shows you how much of a sinner you really are. Fire and Brimstone Baptist altar calls look like summer camp and unicorn farts compared to how utterly disgusted I was with myself during the prep. All people need this, and men especially. Getting the junk beat out of you every once in a while is healthy.

However, as much as the method is rough, it is also extremely gentle when necessary. It is masterful in its ability to break one down and then rebuild one with a keen awareness of their own inability to do good without grace. In short: to rely entirely on Jesus through Mary (which is the entire point if Philip would just pay attention!).

The language used in the prep is of course translated from the French. How faithful it is, I don't know. And how much it is interpreted to give the sense that St. Louis de Montfort would have understood in his time and region, I also don't know. I suspect that if one reads the method with modern eyes, especially with the background of inherent classical liberalism that is inescapable for most Americans and modern Europeans, they will misunderstand and recoil at the language. But if you accept that, as Bob Dylan once sang, you're gonna have to serve somebody: then understanding that self-service is simply serving the devil, and selfless-service is serving God, the choice becomes easy. Moreover, it is utterly freeing to make a decision to relinquish all to providence in what is similar to properly understood slavery (which has NOTHING to do with the unloved chattel of Conrad's darkest Africa being sold by their countrymen to Muslim traders, and on to the fields of the New World). There's nothing oppressive about the method. It's freeing, in fact.

Benefits of the method are long-running and while not always obvious, the lessons and subsequent benefits are constantly at the back of one's mind. To be honest, I'm probably more like Onesimus before Philemon accepted him back than I am a good "slave". There is a distinct comfort in knowing one has pledged themselves to the King of kings and Lord of lords via the Queen of Heaven and Earth. A chivalric heritage, raised up beyond mere myth and legend. An awareness of belonging to the company of great men. Waiting one's turn in providence to be truly accepted into the same ranks of those great men who pined with Holy desire to serve Mary: such as the knights of yesteryear who knew they would never return from the Holy Land in fighting the demonic Muslims, the poor and beaten down Cristero soldiers who had nothing but the love of La Virgen de Guadalupe and some old rifles against the well-supplied forces of Freemasonry, the freezing 40 Armenians (and subsequent replacement Roman Soldier), the burning 7 brothers of Maccabees, etc.

It's emboldening. For a mere servant who has been wronged is a free agent. A slave... now you're messing with their Mistress or Master when you mess with them.

Why wouldn't one want to devote themselves wholeheartedly to the one whom the devil hates?

St. Maximilian Kolbe later continued developing these thoughts and arrived at the reality that a slave of Mary is a soldier for Christ, a Knight of the Immaculata. Nothing is manlier than that, because nothing is more Christlike than subjecting oneself to Mary that they may do the will of the Father.

We're the Church Militant, not the Church Don Quixote or the Church Dramatic or the Church Build Up Strawmen and Then Attack Them.

[mikemac]

I couldn't have said that ^ but I agree with it 100 percent.

There is nothing wrong with being humbled.  And there is nothing wrong with consecrating ourselves as a slave to Jesus through Mary.

[Gardener]

To clarify my above post...

I had someone PM me and ask if they were doing something wrong in the prep since it wasn't/isn't 'brutal" for them.

I doubt they are doing anything wrong. Keep in mind that the prep is designed to bring one to a place where they can best serve Our Lady. That will undoubtedly be different for someone who is in a different spiritual place. When I did the prep I was a fairly new convert from a background which included the worst aspects of Once Saved Always Saved Protestantism, a formerly depraved moral life, 6 years in the Army with 2 combat deployments, etc. I was in a very different place, and was a much more dirty, trashy piece of clay than many serious Catholics, who are much more in tune with spiritual matters and are likely way more advanced in certain good habits than I was at the time.

What was shocking for me, then, is probably something which any serious Catholic got out of the way years prior, and probably through a slower process which wasn't such an onslaught of realization.

[Xavier]

I made the St. Montfort Consecration some 10 years ago. Best decision of my life. It's very wonderful, and strangely freeing, to give oneself totally as a slave of love to Jesus through Mary. The Apostles proudly call themselves servants/slaves of Jesus Christ. Why should we hesitate to? "James the servant of God, and of our Lord Jesus Christ" (Jam 1:1); St. Paul in Romans says we are now servants/slaves to justice, as we once were to sin: "Being then freed from sin, we have been made servants of justice." (Rom 6:18). Our Lady Herself practiced this form of voluntary slavery to the Lord, and calls Herself His "Handmaid"/Female Slave of Love: "And Mary said: Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it done to me according to thy word. And the angel departed from her." (Luk 1:38).

The more we humble ourselves on earth, the more God will exalt us in heaven. Mary humbled Herself to the dust on Earth, taking the lowest place of all. Now, She justly has the highest place among the Saints in Heaven, because of the depths of Her humility. Our Lady and Our Lord encourage us to practice a similar devotion, because They love us, and want us to progress in real sanctity and humility. We will never be as humble as They were. Our Lord washed the feet of His Apostles, taking the role of a Slave Himself, as St. Paul also says, out of His great Love and touching Humility. We will never be so perfect like Them. But we can try, in some small measure, out of love, to imitate our Master and our Mistress to some degree, knowing that by it we will give great glory to God, and do much good also.

When we give the satisfactory value of all our works to Jesus through Mary, Jesus and Mary multiply them by Their own great merits. All our works become progressively purified and detached of self-love, and done more for love of the Glory of God, and the Good of our neighbor. That's how Jesus and Mary Themselves lived on earth and how we, if we wish to be true disciples of Them, should try to live. Total Consecration to Jesus through Mary is nothing other than trying to be a good and perfect disciple of Jesus Christ. It consists in trying to imitate the voluntary emptying of Himself that St. Paul speaks of in Phil 2. He gave up all things that He may become like us. Let us give up all things that we may become like Him. It is not too much to do that, it gives Him glory and joy, and it is so good for us.

God Bless.

[Gerard]

Sorry gang,

I can't help but think there is a lot of excuse making going on. 

When it comes down to it, people come off on these topics the same way as modernists do except instead of denying the miraculous, they are denying that heterodox over the top rhetoric is just that. 

I honestly can't stand it when a modernist "explains" something in the Catholic Church by telling you the words don't say what they mean, they mean "something else."  And then you hear about the "times" and how people thought and felt differently about things than the way we do today.  So, "miracles" aren't really miraculous events,  The Ascension isn't really Christ being lifted up in space to go to Heaven and Angels aren't real, and Adam and Eve weren't real and the people in Genesis didn't really live long, it only meant they were important to those pitiful little savages.     

And conversely, I find it truly disheartening when I see "trads" that make excuses for someone going so far in the opposite direction that they are flat out wrong when you look at the meaning of the words.  We get the same thing.  No...those words don't really mean what you think they mean.

Look at the fruits of this stuff, not real devotion but overblown, distraction and misdirection from Revealed Truth.

Nowadays we have well known trads that publicly want to overturn the dogma that Public Revelation is closed in order to make room for "Fatima" (which is a whole different topic by itself)

I've posted previously about twisted ideas that I remember well in the 1970s of setting Jesus and Mary at odds and Mary always undermining Jesus.  "When Jesus closes the door, Mary opens the  window."  The joke about Mary tossing the rock when Jesus tells the people, "He who is without sin shall cast the first stone."  The stone gets launched and Jesus yells, "Motheerrrrr!"

And we have the alleged La Sallette image of Mary "holding back the arm of her Son."   I find that kind of imagery repugnant and blasphemous.  If Mary is the slave to Jesus, why is she defying Him?  And aren't they both in Heaven where there is no conflict?  It can't happen.  It must be false.   

And I've posted before,  my personal knowledge of a now elderly woman who openly stated after years of disappointment with God over some rough patches in life that she no longer cares about Jesus and only will pray to Mary.  Where did that come from?  Possibly a Catholic Culture that has distorted the status and purpose of the BVM?

Are the Charismatics a Modernist overreaction to this phenomena possibly that instead of Mary interceding, they've now got the Holy Ghost looking for their car keys while they gibber in "tongues"?



I don't want to pick on Xavier here,  but I see a couple of contradictions in his post.  I could grab from other's posts as well. But his post was most recent and a few things jumped out at me. 

The more we humble ourselves on earth, the more God will exalt us in heaven. Mary humbled Herself to the dust on Earth, taking the lowest place of all. As poetic as that sounds, this isn't humility as the Catholic Church teaches it.  It is degradation. Humility is seeing things as they are and knowing your place in the big picture. 


Now, She justly has the highest place among the Saints in Heaven, because of the depths of Her humility. But that can't be right, because she was created to be perfect. She is no more nor less humble than she was when she was on Earth. Her humility was always part of her.  God stacked the deck for her as He has every right to. She was always going to have the highest place. She knows she's number 2 in the Universe and Eternity.  She knew she was special and blessed on Earth during her life here.  Visionary saints who claim she called herself "wretched and despicable" are wrong.  Justice and dignity won't allow it.  Plus she was sinless and she would never give credence to people sinning against her by validating their false witness against her.  That's participation in anothers sin. 


...When we give the satisfactory value of all our works to Jesus through Mary, Jesus and Mary multiply them by Their own great merits. All our works become progressively purified and detached of self-love,  You are supposed to love yourself and love your neighbor as yourself.  The Golden Rule presupposes self-love. If you put no value on yourself, you don't actually make a sacrifice. Cain put no value on his offering because it was his scraps, so he gave nothing. The more you love yourself, the more significant your sacrifice of self is.  St. Therese acted like it's a great thing if God would use her like a mudball and throw her in the corner like trash.  That's nuts.  Jesus knew life, knew value, knew dignity even human dignity and still prayed that the cup could pass Him by.     and done more for love of the Glory of God, and the Good of our neighbor.....

I lament that I spot stuff every day in every place I go.  I see it in the missal at mass, I often hear it from the pulpit, I hear it in lectures, I hear it in the confessional, it's become clear to me that so many people actually use words they don't know the meaning of in their dialogue and prayer life.  They are running on scripts most of the time it seems and they aren't aware of what is really being communicated. 

If it were a band of musicians, it would be like discovering that they generally only have a smattering of knowledge of different types.  Some don't know scales and harmony, some can't count time and they all try to play by ear to get through.  And it's a train wreck. 

[Melkor]

@Gerard Our Lord loves His mother very much, something we should emulate....She is also our mother, and like all mothers tries to lighten the punishment that her children have brought upon themselves. Because Jesus loves her so much, He allows her to hold Him back, as it were.

[Innocent Smith]

@Gerard Our Lord loves His mother very much, something we should emulate....She is also our mother, and like all mothers tries to lighten the punishment that her children have brought upon themselves. Because Jesus loves her so much, He allows her to hold Him back, as it were.

Could you cite an example where Jesus took out a can of whoop-ass to someone walking the earth?  The idea that God has to be held back by his Mother is beyond weird. 

[Innocent Smith]

Sorry gang,

I can't help but think there is a lot of excuse making going on. 

When it comes down to it, people come off on these topics the same way as modernists do except instead of denying the miraculous, they are denying that heterodox over the top rhetoric is just that. 

I honestly can't stand it when a modernist "explains" something in the Catholic Church by telling you the words don't say what they mean, they mean "something else."  And then you hear about the "times" and how people thought and felt differently about things than the way we do today.  So, "miracles" aren't really miraculous events,  The Ascension isn't really Christ being lifted up in space to go to Heaven and Angels aren't real, and Adam and Eve weren't real and the people in Genesis didn't really live long, it only meant they were important to those pitiful little savages.     

And conversely, I find it truly disheartening when I see "trads" that make excuses for someone going so far in the opposite direction that they are flat out wrong when you look at the meaning of the words.  We get the same thing.  No...those words don't really mean what you think they mean.

Look at the fruits of this stuff, not real devotion but overblown, distraction and misdirection from Revealed Truth.

Nowadays we have well known trads that publicly want to overturn the dogma that Public Revelation is closed in order to make room for "Fatima" (which is a whole different topic by itself)

I've posted previously about twisted ideas that I remember well in the 1970s of setting Jesus and Mary at odds and Mary always undermining Jesus.  "When Jesus closes the door, Mary opens the  window."  The joke about Mary tossing the rock when Jesus tells the people, "He who is without sin shall cast the first stone."  The stone gets launched and Jesus yells, "Motheerrrrr!"

And we have the alleged La Sallette image of Mary "holding back the arm of her Son."   I find that kind of imagery repugnant and blasphemous.  If Mary is the slave to Jesus, why is she defying Him?  And aren't they both in Heaven where there is no conflict?  It can't happen.  It must be false.   

And I've posted before,  my personal knowledge of a now elderly woman who openly stated after years of disappointment with God over some rough patches in life that she no longer cares about Jesus and only will pray to Mary.  Where did that come from?  Possibly a Catholic Culture that has distorted the status and purpose of the BVM?

Are the Charismatics a Modernist overreaction to this phenomena possibly that instead of Mary interceding, they've now got the Holy Ghost looking for their car keys while they gibber in "tongues"?



I don't want to pick on Xavier here,  but I see a couple of contradictions in his post.  I could grab from other's posts as well. But his post was most recent and a few things jumped out at me. 

The more we humble ourselves on earth, the more God will exalt us in heaven. Mary humbled Herself to the dust on Earth, taking the lowest place of all. As poetic as that sounds, this isn't humility as the Catholic Church teaches it.  It is degradation. Humility is seeing things as they are and knowing your place in the big picture. 


Now, She justly has the highest place among the Saints in Heaven, because of the depths of Her humility. But that can't be right, because she was created to be perfect. She is no more nor less humble than she was when she was on Earth. Her humility was always part of her.  God stacked the deck for her as He has every right to. She was always going to have the highest place. She knows she's number 2 in the Universe and Eternity.  She knew she was special and blessed on Earth during her life here.  Visionary saints who claim she called herself "wretched and despicable" are wrong.  Justice and dignity won't allow it.  Plus she was sinless and she would never give credence to people sinning against her by validating their false witness against her.  That's participation in anothers sin. 


...When we give the satisfactory value of all our works to Jesus through Mary, Jesus and Mary multiply them by Their own great merits. All our works become progressively purified and detached of self-love,  You are supposed to love yourself and love your neighbor as yourself.  The Golden Rule presupposes self-love. If you put no value on yourself, you don't actually make a sacrifice. Cain put no value on his offering because it was his scraps, so he gave nothing. The more you love yourself, the more significant your sacrifice of self is.  St. Therese acted like it's a great thing if God would use her like a mudball and throw her in the corner like trash.  That's nuts.  Jesus knew life, knew value, knew dignity even human dignity and still prayed that the cup could pass Him by.     and done more for love of the Glory of God, and the Good of our neighbor.....

I lament that I spot stuff every day in every place I go.  I see it in the missal at mass, I often hear it from the pulpit, I hear it in lectures, I hear it in the confessional, it's become clear to me that so many people actually use words they don't know the meaning of in their dialogue and prayer life.  They are running on scripts most of the time it seems and they aren't aware of what is really being communicated. 

If it were a band of musicians, it would be like discovering that they generally only have a smattering of knowledge of different types.  Some don't know scales and harmony, some can't count time and they all try to play by ear to get through.  And it's a train wreck.

What we are talking about here, essentially, is digestible Catholicism served up in a high chair. 

No apologies from me for pointing it out either.  I have long suffered this nonsense.